Achtung Panzer! Armor Discussion Thread

[Empire of Cats]

As of this posting, it has been a little over a hundred years since the 'land ship' was first introduced into warfare by the British Army in the Battle of the Somme. Since the first Mark I tank rolled across the trenches, armor has developed immensely, from iron beasts to highly advanced and technical vehicles.

Some possible discussion points include your opinion on the absolute best tank of all time (personally I think that the Panther V tank of WWII is one of the best), what effect the tank has had on combat, what nation makes the best tanks, the best way to utilize tanks in combat, and really any and all aspects of armored warfare, from World War I to the present day. So, with that in mind, let's get this discussion started!

[Neu Leonstein]

German WWII armour is mostly overrated though. The early models weren't really any better on average than those of the Allies... just used differently and flattered by the strategic situation, and the late models were too complicated and expensive to make for a country that needed to make sure no dollar was wasted.

I rate something like the T-55 way more highly. Came out almost the same time as the Tiger II (for example), but better armour, better gun, but like half the weight and therefore way better power-to-weight ratio. They made thousands and thousands and they served for half a century.

[Nekotani]

[Uxupox]

(Image)

Its small barrel make me thinks it's a Sherman or some form of derivation but I don't think it is...

[Empire of Cats]

German WWII armour is mostly overrated though. The early models weren't really any better on average than those of the Allies... just used differently and flattered by the strategic situation, and the late models were too complicated and expensive to make for a country that needed to make sure no dollar was wasted.

I rate something like the T-55 way more highly. Came out almost the same time as the Tiger II (for example), but better armour, better gun, but like half the weight and therefore way better power-to-weight ratio. They made thousands and thousands and they served for half a century.

I beg to differ, at least slightly. German armor may be overrated, but it's not so much what you have as what you do with it. The Panzer II wasn't the best tank, but combine it with the tactical genius of Erwin Rommel...then look out. If you are able to outthink and outmaneuver your enemy, their numerical superiority is negated as they are unable to coordinate an effective response. Look at France 1940 for example. The Allies had more tanks, but the Germans were able to exploit the inefficient tactics of the French and British and that numerical superiority was negated.

As for the T-55, I agree. That's a truly impressive tank. I hear that the Syrian 'rebels' are actually still using it against Assad's forces.

[Empire of Cats]

(Image)

Looks Italian to me....

[Uxupox]

(Image)

Looks Italian to me....

It most likely is.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Looks Italian to me....

It most likely is.

It is. Fiat-Ansaldo M13/40.

[Val Halla]

It most likely is.

It is. Fiat-Ansaldo M13/40.

Ain't got nothing on our old 99 Punto

[Neu Leonstein]

I beg to differ, at least slightly. German armor may be overrated, but it's not so much what you have as what you do with it. The Panzer II wasn't the best tank, but combine it with the tactical genius of Erwin Rommel...then look out. If you are able to outthink and outmaneuver your enemy, their numerical superiority is negated as they are unable to coordinate an effective response. Look at France 1940 for example. The Allies had more tanks, but the Germans were able to exploit the inefficient tactics of the French and British and that numerical superiority was negated.

That's basically what I said, isn't it? It was the way the Germans used combined arms to move so quickly that the defenders were in disarray and ended up never really getting a working defense going. Until Russia, that is, where the distances were big enough that the Red Army could retreat mostly intact and eventually push back as supply lines got too long for the Germans.

But that's not really a question of the armour, as in the actual machinery. The Russians always had better tanks and more of them.

And on Rommel, I feel like it's worth pointing out every time someone mentions him that as great a leader he might have been at the tactical level, he did mess up his logistics pretty badly. Not entirely his fault, obviously, but I think that there's a lot of British wartime propaganda speaking when people remember Rommel these days.

[Empire of Cats]

I beg to differ, at least slightly. German armor may be overrated, but it's not so much what you have as what you do with it. The Panzer II wasn't the best tank, but combine it with the tactical genius of Erwin Rommel...then look out. If you are able to outthink and outmaneuver your enemy, their numerical superiority is negated as they are unable to coordinate an effective response. Look at France 1940 for example. The Allies had more tanks, but the Germans were able to exploit the inefficient tactics of the French and British and that numerical superiority was negated.

That's basically what I said, isn't it? It was the way the Germans used combined arms to move so quickly that the defenders were in disarray and ended up never really getting a working defense going. Until Russia, that is, where the distances were big enough that the Red Army could retreat mostly intact and eventually push back as supply lines got too long for the Germans.

But that's not really a question of the armour, as in the actual machinery. The Russians always had better tanks and more of them.

And on Rommel, I feel like it's worth pointing out every time someone mentions him that as great a leader he might have been at the tactical level, he did mess up his logistics pretty badly. Not entirely his fault, obviously, but I think that there's a lot of British wartime propaganda speaking when people remember Rommel these days.

My God, I am so oblivious! You certainly did. My bad. I'm still waking up.

At least I was right about the tank being Italian...

And no, you're right, Rommel wasn't perfect, he did overextend himself time and again and it ended up resulting in a seesaw battle for North Africa, for instance.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

The thing about tanks is, you don't need an excellent tank to get the job done, you just need more of them than the enemy has. The enemy might have overengineered super-powered tanks that can single-handedly take on a company of your undergunned tin cans on tracks, but in the end, your undergunned tin cans can still win the day if you can just churn out so many of them that the fancy enemy tanks run out of ammunition sooner than you run out of tanks.

Since the advent of industrial warfare, wars have been won in factories, not battlefields. You might have the best commanders and the most elite troops in the world, equipped with cutting-edge tech decades ahead of it's time and trained in the most revolutionary, innovative tactics - but it will only do you so much good in the long run if you can't keep your armies adequately supplied. The best equipment for an industrial-era war is therefore not the one that can wipe the floor with everything else out there, but the one best adapted for mass production. The proven maxim of the industrial age is that "quantity is a quality in it's own right", and nowhere this holds more true than in a total war scenario.

The Germans might have learned a lot tactics and strategy-wise from the Great War, but they ultimately failed to learn and adapt to the fundamental shift in the paradigm of war itself - the idea that wars are no longer won in battle, but in the factories. This cost them another war despite having the best commanders then alive, the most innovative tactics and also the most advanced military technology in existence at the time. A Tiger tank could easily make short work of any Allied or Soviet vehicle then in existence, but it had to be shipped all the way back to Germany for repair if damaged. Meanwhile, Soviet and American factories kept churning out scores of dirt-cheap T-34s and Shermans, which could simply be abandoned where they stood, the crew receiving a brand-new tank on the same day, and despite their objective inferiority against German armor, these tanks were still more than adequate at killing non-armored targets and overwhelming armored ones by sheer numbers.

Admittedly, this principle is no longer quite true in the modern era of asymmetric warfare, where quality and survivability are again becoming the dominant design concerns.

[Risottia]

And on Rommel, I feel like it's worth pointing out every time someone mentions him that as great a leader he might have been at the tactical level, he did mess up his logistics pretty badly. Not entirely his fault, obviously, but I think that there's a lot of British wartime propaganda speaking when people remember Rommel these days.

His deploy at the Second El Alamein was especially ineffective. I still think that if one wants to point out the best German armour general of WW2, it's most likely Guderian.

About Italian tanks, I wonder how come the nation which first came up with a heavy tank sporting a turreted main gun with a 360° traverse (the FIAT 2000, in 1917) could abandon the idea of heavy tanks and rely on tankettes and light tanks only.

[Uxupox]

And on Rommel, I feel like it's worth pointing out every time someone mentions him that as great a leader he might have been at the tactical level, he did mess up his logistics pretty badly. Not entirely his fault, obviously, but I think that there's a lot of British wartime propaganda speaking when people remember Rommel these days.

His deploy at the Second El Alamein was especially ineffective. I still think that if one wants to point out the best German armour general of WW2, it's most likely Guderian.

About Italian tanks, I wonder how come the nation which first came up with a heavy tank sporting a turreted main gun with a 360° traverse (the FIAT 2000, in 1917) could abandon the idea of heavy tanks and rely on tankettes and light tanks only.

Looking at Italian tanks specifications and comparing them to their immediate enemies and allies within their vicinity then one can can conclude that they are trash.

[Kanzaki Ranko]

I'm a huge fan of the KV-2.

Yes, it's impractical.

No, it wasn't the most effective design.

But it was hilarious and awesome.

Probably my favorite tank.

I loved the WWII Soviet mindset of, "Well... we have big gun, we have tank chassis... Throw them together!"

[Union of Despotistan]

So, which one was better ?

Panzer V Panther or Tiger II ?

[Empire of Cats]

So, which one was better ?

Panzer V Panther or Tiger II ?

Hum...I'd say the Panther, because by the time that the Tiger was introduced, the German war machine was running out of fuel, supplies, etc. Its size and its copious consumption of fuel hindered its mobility severely. That said, the kill ratios some units achieved with it were incredible, like that of the 502nd Heavy Tank Battalion. From 1942-45, it achieved a kill/loss ratio of 13.08 to 1. But the prize goes to the 13th Company of the Grossdeutcheschland Division, which lost 56 Tigers...and destroyed some 500 enemy tanks while deployed with Tigers.

However, the Panther was a better tank, as it was cheaper to produce, quicker, and had better handling. It was one of the best tanks of the war. That said, nothing put more fear in an Allied tanker than hearing that they were going up against Tigers. Not that Tigers were invincible, but that they were so held in awe that it had a major psychological advantage over some of its opponents.

Bear in mind though, that the Panther was a medium tank, while the Tiger II was a heavy tank. The Tiger was never meant to serve as a run of the mill average main battle tank, but to be used as a sort of 'bunker-buster' heavy backup tank. So it's kind of a little hard to compare the two.

[Rio Cana]

Who needs tanks when you could have a Pak-40 German 75mm tank destroyer. It was much cheaper then a tank.

Video of it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7fhBm1ouSU

[Teemant]

Who needs tanks when you could have a Pak-40 German 75mm tank destroyer. It was much cheaper then a tank.

Video of it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7fhBm1ouSU

Tanks are offensive weapons after all.

[Union of Despotistan]

So, which one was better ?

Panzer V Panther or Tiger II ?

Hum...I'd say the Panther, because by the time that the Tiger was introduced, the German war machine was running out of fuel, supplies, etc. Its size and its copious consumption of fuel hindered its mobility severely. That said, the kill ratios some units achieved with it were incredible, like that of the 502nd Heavy Tank Battalion. From 1942-45, it achieved a kill/loss ratio of 13.08 to 1. But the prize goes to the 13th Company of the Grossdeutcheschland Division, which lost 56 Tigers...and destroyed some 500 enemy tanks while deployed with Tigers.

However, the Panther was a better tank, as it was cheaper to produce, quicker, and had better handling. It was one of the best tanks of the war. That said, nothing put more fear in an Allied tanker than hearing that they were going up against Tigers. Not that Tigers were invincible, but that they were so held in awe that it had a major psychological advantage over some of its opponents.

Bear in mind though, that the Panther was a medium tank, while the Tiger II was a heavy tank. The Tiger was never meant to serve as a run of the mill average main battle tank, but to be used as a sort of 'bunker-buster' heavy backup tank. So it's kind of a little hard to compare the two.

Interesting yes! I did not know they were different classes. I freely admit my knowledge of tanks is limited, but it always fascinated me since a very young age. And I remember lots of conversation like this about which is better.

The fuel consumption is also a very relevant point indeed as Germany was out of fuel late in war. I could see why the Panther would have been a better tool in this situation now. Thanks.

[Risottia]

Looking at Italian tanks specifications and comparing them to their immediate enemies and allies within their vicinity then one can can conclude that they are trash.

Frankly the Leclerc, the Pz87WE, the T-95 Degman and the Leo2A4 don't look a lot better than the Ariete.

[Risottia]

So, which one was better ?

Panzer V Panther or Tiger II ?

Panther all the way. The Tiger II was slow and was prone to continued accidents.

[Union of Despotistan]

So, which one was better ?

Panzer V Panther or Tiger II ?

Panther all the way. The Tiger II was slow and was prone to continued accidents.

Why the Tiger II was breaking often ? Was it because of how big and heavy it was ? Structural flaws?

[Risottia]

Panther all the way. The Tiger II was slow and was prone to continued accidents.

Why the Tiger II was breaking often ? Was it because of how big and heavy it was ? Structural flaws?

I think more like "overengineered and rushed into production without testing it extensively enough".

[Uxupox]

Why the Tiger II was breaking often ? Was it because of how big and heavy it was ? Structural flaws?

I think more like "overengineered and rushed into production without testing it extensively enough".

Can't get tested when the possibility of getting spanked by the Soviets is on the horizon.